Two of the nation’s premier moral issues organizations, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, are refusing to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in February because a homosexual activist group, GOProud, has been invited.

“We’ve been very involved in CPAC for over a decade and have managed a couple of popular sessions. However, we will no longer be involved with CPAC because of the organization’s financial mismanagement and movement away from conservative principles,” said Tom McClusky, senior vice president for FRC Action.

“CWA has decided not to participate in part because of GOProud,” CWA President Penny Nance told WND.

What has GOProud done to the Family Research Council of Concerned Women for America? Not a darned thing. GOProud hasn’t tried to subvert either of these groups or the conservative movement in general. They’re not campaigning against them nor trying to drag people away from their mailing lists. GOProud shares the very same limited government, low tax, strong national defense views as the FRC and CWA. In fact, GOProud laid aside the “social” part of its platform in order to ally with fiscal conservatives to get a handle on the looming spending disasters in front of us.

The only qualms either of these groups, or any of the other marginal conservative groups who have bowed out of CPAC, have against GOProud is that the members are…ummm. Can I say this without getting into trouble?

Well, you see, they’re…uh.

They’re GAY! Okay? Are you happy? I said it. Great. Now a bunch of ridiculous punters whose underwear are doubtlessly two sizes too small are going to boycott my blog, too.

I said at the beginning of this post that this CPAC boycott was stupidity and I meant it. Here’s why. CPAC is the largest gathering of conservatives in the world. Thousands of people of varying levels of political interest and involvement will be there. The four days of the convention proved literally thousands of opportunities to spread a message, gain new members, increase mailing lists, and generally exert influence and make allies. I can guarantee you that very few people will think about the Family Research Council during CPAC. They’ll be far too busy visiting other groups’ booths, including GOProud’s. If the FRC and CWA really want to make a dent on conservative thought, they’re going to have to do it through persuaion, not by an infantile tantrum covered seriously only by a fringe news service whose claim to fame is that it’s head guy is an avowed Birther.

And you know what? The boycott isn’t drawing much attention from the right, if any at all. Take a look at this memeorandum thread. See all those blogs writing about this story? They’re almost all left-wing blogs and I can guarantee you they’re not writing about the noble moral stand of the Concerned Women of America or the Family Research Council. Without even looking, I can tell you they’re eating up the “I hates me some gay people” quotes like sweet, sweet candy and using words like “bigot” and “hater”. It’s a mortal lock that they’re playing those two groups as representative of conservatives as a whole, to make us all look like homophobic cretins.

So, thanks a lot for that.

I’ll have a lot more to say about this, and why the SoCon/FiscCon fight hurts everyone on this week’s episode of The Delivery. If you don’t catch it live on the UStream feed, I’ll post a link to the show as soon as it’s available. Trust me, there’s a lot more to say.

Two things. 1. Thanks for making me feel bad that I won't be at CPAC. And 2. Not only is this not making any waves on the right, but outside the political bubble, no one really cares about CPAC, GOProud, FRC or CWA. (It's nerd alphabet soup.) FRC made this great moral stand to what end exactly? Idiots.

"Without even looking, I can tell you theyre eating up the I hates me some gay people quotes like sweet, sweet candy and using words like bigot and hater. Its a mortal lock that theyre playing those two groups as representative of conservatives as a whole, to make us all look like homophobic cretins."

Well then demand an end to this non-sense so that lefty blogs will start saying nice things about us again. Wait, what?? Seriously?

Have they ever needed us to hand them one? Do they really need someone shouting racial slurs and spitting on black congressmen or can they and do they just make it up? Do the need to see actual white hoods at tea party events or do they just make it up? You know the answer…and this is no different. They will make up whatever they don't have exact facts on…they will never find common cause w/ conservatives and they will never have respect for conservatives no matter how respectable or how much you or anyone else tries to blunt the supposed less appealing wing of the conservative movement. Period…end of story. Don't fall for that old trick. That somehow if we could just change this or smooth out that aspect of the right side's nature, that suddenly the left will see us as reasonable people that they would like to join. The left is not reasonable.

Now if you want to argue that these two right-leaning groups could do more to get along, fine. We can have that argument on who needs to bend & why. But the moment you use the threat of lefty blogs looking down on us as a tactic to coerce agreement….well, you lost me there.

There is a difference between what the left will invent and what they will exaggerate. There is never a reason to simply hand over ammunition without a very good cause and this is not at all a very good cause.

But I've also given other reasons their move was infantile. However, I consider their making my life as a conservative more difficult an important one.

Actually, that these groups are boycotting makes me more inclined, for the first time, to attend CPAC. The social conservative groups have always rubbed me wrong, because IMO opinion they are NOT conservative groups… at least in how I define “conservative.”

I don't see an issue at all with the moral conservative groups pulling out of a conference that no longer aligns with their values. There seems to be a lot of spinning on the right that the CWA and FRC are eeeeevil and outdated for their stand, but they aren't. They are MORAL conservatives. They are CHRISTIAN conservatives. Buttsex, rampant disease and child pornography have little to do with their value structure. Why shouldn't they pull out? (no pun intended)

Personally, I'm for more interested in the part of the story where Keene's wife was embezzling the hard earned money of punters like us.

I don't think them evil or outdated, merely stupid. I expect a political group to behave with some sense when it makes a political decision, especially a group like the CWA or FRC that has been around a while. These groups are not private indivuduals making decisions only for themselves, but groups that represent thousands (tens of thousands) of members whose best interests are not at all served by pulling out of the largest gathering of conservatives in the world because one gay group is involved.

By the by, I think the money angle is a red herring. Neither group really cares about that. If they did, it would have come to a head separate from GOProud. They're pulling what I've come to think of as the SoCon tantrum — the fit that more than a few SoCons pull when you suggest that they might have to share and play well with others.

I don’t think them evil or outdated, merely stupid. I expect a political group to behave with some sense when it makes a political decision, especially a group like the CWA or FRC that has been around a while.

Hope I did that pull right….

THAT is my thing with these groups. They’ve been around long enough to realize the “Church/State” argument, boiled down: the State should not be allowed in Church affairs. Marriage belongs to the Church (synagogue; mosque;ashram; etc.). CIVIL UNIONS, on the other hand….

I understand what you are saying, but your saying it, even in big capital letters, does not necessarily make it so. There is a good case to be made that marriage can also belong to civil society because it is a pillar of civil society. I am not making that argument, by the way. I'm merely noting that it exists and it's not one that can be easily dismissed, not if you're interested in serious discussion.

Because selfishness ticks me off and I do see squabbling over it — more squabbling than I think is worth having. Also, the whole notion of a "truce" hangs on the ability of both SoCon and FiCon sides to act like adults. I got a first-hand demonstration of how that's not happening yet in the comment thread of a post I wrote, I think, last month.

What good is a truce w/ a teeny-tiny group of gay GOP-ers when the bulk of the fight is being brought from the other side? SocCon's can't afford to take a break from their core issues. The left is, quite obviously, not taking a break.

Sheesh, you are starting to sound like a 2008 McCain voter…."just forget all your stupid core issues people and vote for this guy who will screw you every which way on every issue you believe is most urgent". Those two groups exists primarily for the cause of social conservatism. Their platform is not fiscal conservatism, even if many probably agree w/ those principles as well. And you are saying they are stupid for not dropping their primary agenda and following the one YOU think is most important.

Cheesestick, I've written perhaps a couple thousand words on this. I'm not calling for a unilateral truce and never have. I'm saying, as I've said before, that all of us are going to have delay our particular pet issues to fight the more immediate existential fight that is right in front of us. Sure, this may make FiCons happier right now, but what is more important, scoring a couple political points against an ally or actually fixing a problem that will bury us and our children?

However, that the FRC and CWA are doing is not helping their cause one little bit. In fact, it's hurting their cause significantly. Not only are they depriving themselves of perhaps the best opportunity to talk directly to conservatives of every stripe, they're doing so in the most public, most petulant manner possible. How, exactly, does that push their favorite issues any bit closer to the finish line?

They are not "pet" issues. That's the problem. You are insisting that they see YOUR issue as the most important issue while you demean and ask them to set aside what are actually their primary concerns – the very reason their organizations exist.

And I'd probably have to be a little more of an insider to see how this hurts their cause outside of blogs & 24 hour cable news; without which I wouldn't even know what a CPAC was. I'm assuming these groups also get their majority of their funding from donations. Donations from donors that aren't likely to see the importance of a CPAC convention either. Donors who are already leery of the many organizations that started out with conservative goals & principles but slowly creep leftward until they are barely distinguishable from the left. That's where we found ourselves the last time supposed republicans were in charge but liberal & ridiculously large & intrusive govt. seemed to thrive and get stronger.

Again, Cheesestick, you are not paying attention to what I've actually written. Go back and read my last reply to you and tell me where, exactly, I am asking anyone to accept my issue as the most important issue. Just because I identify a thing as the most important issue does not make it my own pet issue.

I'll also note that GOProud has openly offered to lay aside its primary concerns — the very reasons it exists — to tackle the fiscal issues that are, whether you like them or not, the most important issues we face right now.

I've also explained how this hurts their causes, in a couple different ways. You may have a point about their donors, but consider that CPAC has been the most important gathering of conservatives in the world for a very long time now. It is a pretty big deal in the conservative political world and has been since before Ronald Reagan was President.

Excluding that ridiculous open letter published in November, I haven't seen any evidence of socons and ficons NOT acting like adults. The momentum of the Teaparty and the results of the recent November election reveal a good working relationship between the two groups.

Tania, I've been as clear as I can be in two blog posts, goodness knows how much comment-jousting, and half an hour of podcasting on the subject. I'm not sure what else I can say. You don't see a problem. That's fine. I accept that. I do see a problem. It may not be a big problem, or a problem that has reached the mainstream voters, but it sure as heck could become one very quickly as things heat up going into an election year.

[…] fired up on the air as I was last night and I hope I didn’t sound too angry.Really, though, the foolishness I wrote about last night and talked about in the first half does make me angrier than anything else I’ve come across […]

[…] fired up on the air as I was last night and I hope I didn’t sound too angry.Really, though, the foolishness I wrote about last night and talked about in the first half does make me angrier than anything else I’ve come across […]

I"m using a different comment system. It's easier both to use and to moderate, but it does mean that it has to learn who the frequent and trusted commenters are. I'm sorry that you go to moderation, but I don't expect it to last very long.

[…] GOProud has been a controversial issue at CPAC, as some leading social conservatives were afraid that they would catch the virulent and deadly virus called “Teh Ghey,” if they were seen in public with conservative people who were sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Or something. I’m a bit fuzzy on why it matters what a person does in the privacy of his or her bedroom, as long as it doesn’t affect me, and is legal. […]

[…] love in the SoCon/FiCon “Civil War” story, it might as well be Stacy McCain. However, I did deliver some pretty good commentary myself.Ed Driscoll: “Governing, like math, is hard.”Yes, folks, Socialism really does […]